The Institute for Peace Research at Givat Haviva, whose aim is to
further historiographical research on subjects pertaining to
attempts to solve the Israel-Arab conflict, published a collection
of seven articles on "Islam and Peace". They appeared in Hebrew,
with Arabic and English synopses. We are publishing extacts from
two of these articles, by Dr. Ilan Pappe and by Ibrahim
Malik.
Our purpose here is to look for "Islamic moderates" - to define
them and evaluate their strength and influence. We will not expect
to include in the definition of "moderate" a different attitude to
Israel. One must not forget that since the creation of the state of
Israel, no Muslim group, neither from the establishment nor the
periphery, managed to seize power in the confrontation states with
Israel. On the contrary, the three states leading the campaign
against Israel - Egypt, Syria and Iraq - were taken over during the
conflict by groups possessing an out-and-out secular orientation
and ideology, sometimes even extremist in their attitude to Islam
and tradition. As against this, in spite of their clear
anti-Israeli rhetoric, the regimes more conservative and
conciliatory in their attitude to religion - like the Saudi
Arabian, Jordanian and Moroccan regimes - did not stand out in
their hostility toward Israel.
We set out, therefore, to illuminate the more pragmatic,
conciliatory face of the religious establishment, and of part of
its exremists periphery, toward political and social questions. If
we will indeed find that there is such a face in the Arab
environment surrounding us, we will at least be able to avoid the
tendency to crown Islam with exclusively fanatical and violent
stigmas. We are aware that the pragmatic face is not the only one
of contemporary Arab Islam. However, in our view, it is an aspect
on which insufficient light has been shed because of the tendency
in the Israeli media, and the natural public interest in this
direction, to concentrate on the more militant expressions of
Islam.
We will want to examine how the establishment and the extremists
behave in face of the Middle Eastern reality: a reality dictated by
accelerated processes of Westernization and modernization which
reached a peak in the establishment of the national Arab states in
the 1920's. Discussing the adaptation of the Islamic example to the
changing political reality, both internal and external, we will
concentrate on intellectual endeavors in the Arab world to clarify
the commands and decrees of Islam with the help of interpretations
sustained by western political science and European philosophy.
~acking these, we will at least try to find tendencies to
compromise with the reality by means of lenient interpretations of
those Islamic commands which make it difficult for the believer to
adapt to changing reality.
We will discover that in the not-too-distant past there were those
who saw a connection between democratic and liberal world-outlooks
and religious interpretions and we will try to point to a
conciliatory trend in relation to the reality in our period.
Discussing these historical phenonema and studying pragmatic trends
in our day can lead us to a number of conclusions, naturally
tentative, as regards the actual ability of Islamic Arab
establishments, or fundamentalist movements, to conduct any
dialogue with the Jewish state, or even to accomodate themselves to
its existence.
Religious dogma and the political reality
The need to give new interpretations to eternal principles arose in
the Middle East with the start of contact with the
European-colonialist culture at the end of the eighteenth century.
The outstanding answer given by the religious establishment, both
in the Ottoman Empire and in Egypt, was one of conciliatory
interpretation of religious dogma. Those preaching this compromise
acted according to the western cultural heritage. This process grew
stronger in the course of the nineteenth century and reached its
peak in the eighth decade of that century during the term of the
religious leader Muhammad Abduh (1849-1905) as the Sheik of
al-Azhar.
Abduh combined fundamentalism (that is, preaching a return to the
fundamentals of Islamic religion as interpreted before the
penetration of foreign influences) with liberal and democratic
interpretation of the principles of religion.
Parallel to this effort, another alternative answer to the western
challenge started to stand out. This was an attempt to grasp
fundamentalism as the only defense, without using "western
scaffolding" against the penetration of the West. This response
demanded adapting the reality to religious dogma without
compromise. Abduh tought that in the glorious past the Islamic
fathers clove to ideas which Europe would adopt later under the
influence of Islam, beginning with the Renaissance period.
Therefore, from the beginning of this century, fundamentalists of
Abduh's school of thought do not necessarily negate western
liberal-democratic influence in interpreting Islamic dogma.
The researcher Fuad Ajami claims that in the same fundamentalist
trend which is not assisted by the West in order to interpret
religious dogma, one can distinguish two main streams: extreme
fundmentalism which chooses violence and "forcing the issue" as the
best way to realize the Salafi idea; and another stream, which he
calls "Conservative fundamentalism". This is prepared to compromise
to some extent with those local political forces involved, and with
secularists who grew in the wake of the European penetration of the
Middle East. The present regimes in Saudia Arabia, Jordan and
Morocco are based, in Ajami's opinion, on silent agreements with
this sort of "Conservative fundamentalism".
Moreover, according to him the central trend in the "Muslim
Brethren" has always belonged to this trend of thought.
We will deal with these two trends in Islamic dcommentary: the one
helped by liberal-European thought - often called "modernist Islam"
or by Leonard Binder "Islamic Liberalism", I and the one which
comprises but without any direct connection with the West -
Conservative fundamentalism. The great British Orientalist
H.A.R.Gibb was among the first to expound the view that Islamic
modernism is first and foremost a function of western liberalism.
Thus, it was to be expected that the general aim of the modernists
was to interpret Islam in the spirit of liberal and humanistic
ideas and values. "Islam is not opposed to these (western liberal)
ideas; but they soon went on to claim that Islam is the embodiment
of them in their highest and most perfect form" (pg.70).
Islam moderates: modernist and liberal Islam
Muhammad Abduh developed an Islamic interpretation which would
serve as a source of inspiration for a vision of a parliamentary
regime and a democratic society. It is important to emphasize that
the reference is to someone holding one of the most senior
positions in Islam. Muhammad Abduh chose as the prisms through
which he interpreted the principles of Islam, people like Jeremy
Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Herbert Spencer, as well as European
thinkers from various trends. In this interpretation, Islam
provided the source of inspiration for parliamentarism, the
division of functions and political sovereignty. 2
Along with this, one cannot overlook that Abduh/s interpretation
did not include any special stress on the rights of the individual
and his freedoms, a subject without which it would be hard to call
any thinking as dealing with liberalism or democracy. It can be
claimed that the lack of these items in his theory reflects on the
attitude of the thinker toward them. H.A.R. Gibb believes that this
defect stems from the fact that in his basic outlook Abduh is
nevertheless a fundamentalist. In his view, both Abduh/s teaching
and that of Sir Ahmad Khan, the distinguished Indian reformist who
preceded Abduh and influenced him, tried to prove that Islam is not
a fossilised system and does not constitute an obstacle to the
progress of thought, but they did not free themselves from "the
dominant role of tradition in Islam".3
A part of Abduh/s successors in spite of these limitations even
pondered the question of Islam and citizens' rights. One of the
outstanding figures among them was Mahmud al-' Aqad. AI-' Aqad
started out imprisoned by the charm of the European heritage and
inclined to liberalism and outright secularism. However, like
others of his generation he returned to a support of tradition and
religion. According to him "democratic Islam" is founded on four
principles: civic responsibility, equality before the law, the
principle of the Shllrah (the obligation of the ruled to consult
with the ruler) and social solidarity.4 AI-'Aqad did not adequately
clarify the principle of the sovereignty of the people. But the
constant use of the term Shllrah and the democratic interpretation
accompanying it in his writing can bear witness to an indirect
recognition of freedom of thought and expression.
The Shari'a is not in general dogmatic when it comes to dealing
with citizens' rights. Accordingly, the creation of a "social
contract" is still possible without this constituting a
contradiction to Islamic law. Such a contract was already proposed
in the 1960's by the Pakistani leader and distinguished
int~rnational jurist Muhammad Zafruallah Khan. In 1967 he published
a contract under the heading "Islam and Citizens' Rights", which
included, in the spirit of Abduh, Islamic arguments for the ideas
inherent in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights of
December 10, 1948.
Nevertheless there has yet to be found anyone in Islam who will
interpret the famous Hadith spoken by the prophet Muhammad "the
differences of opinion in my community are blessed" as tolerance
toward democratic and liberal western outlooks and not, as is
customary, as giving permission to different streams and goals
within Islam.
Be this as it may, the liberal and democratic interpretation of
Islam was never translated into the language of deeds. From this
failure two political concepts grew in the twentieth century: of
these, fudamentalist and militant Islam survived while the second,
wholly secular and democratic, is withering away. The secular
students of Abduh dealt bravely and comprehensively with questions
of religion and state, the rights of the individual and
modernization. Ahmad Lutfi AI-Sayyid (1872-1963), one. of the
fathers of Egyptian nationalism, stood out among them. The
extremist students of Abduh, on the other hand, bound themselves to
the idea of the Salfta as the best reply to the western
challenge.
Lutfi AI-Sayyid's type of secularism was no different from that
preached by Christian thinkers in the Levant, who also contributed
to shaping liberal democratic Arab thought. One can therefore say
that from reformist Islam sprouted, if only for a short time, buds
of liberal, democratic and secular thought which caused the
historian Albert Hourani to crown this active period of thought
(1739-1798) as the Arab "Liberal age". However, these buds withered
at the feet of the new Arab regimes and with their withering this
branch of ideas and of thinking was cut off.
These regimes were shaped and built by young elites which developed
in the period of western presence in the Middle East between the
two world wars against European colonialism. As against the veteran
elites, this group saw in nationalist and anti-democratic
secularism the eternal and victorious answer both to Islam and
tradition, and to the occupation and western presence. Along with
this, intellectual support for liberalism and democracy, even for a
short time and among a thin social stratum, proves that these
concepts are not always and totally alienated from Arab society.
Moreover, the buds of liberalism and democracy owe their absorption
to the moderate Islamic interpretation.
It seems therefore that the most positive thing that can be said of
Arab Islam and its relations with liberal democracy in the
twentieth century ¬is that it was not alone in serving as a
source for the growth of dictatorial regimes. It is true that in
the case of Jordan and Saudia Arabia there is no doubt that
religion is the source of the character of autocratic regimes.
However, in states like Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Algeria and Tunisia,
democracy and liberalism expired as a result of European and not
Islamic influence. Further, those regimes which attribute great
importance to Islam in justifying their existence (and thus
compromise more with the religious establishment) did not stand out
for their cruder violation of human rights, or for taking
anti-democratic steps. The present secular, authoritarian,
patronage-oriented ideology of several of the Arab regimes is an
obstacle no less effective than Islam against liberalization and
democratization.
Arab secularism as an obstacle to liberalism and
democracy
From their outset, the secular regimes which succeeded in freeing.
their countries from the yoke of European colonialism followed
European ideologies whose foundations were anti-democratic.
According to the concepts of these leaders, progress did not
include the democratization of society, or the liberalization of
the regime.
This tendency has two main explanations. The first is connected to
the ideological roots of modem Arab nationalism while the second is
founded in the political reality confronting active nationalists at
the end of the first world war.
It was the romantic and not the liberal stream in European
nationalism which attracted the young Arab leadership generation in
the 1930's. According to this concept, there is no connection
between the liberation of the individual and the liberation of the
nation. As in Germany at the end of the nineteenth century,
"liberal nationalism" was conceived as too egoistic and
ineffective, because of its over-occupation with the rights of the
individual. "Romantic nationalism" offered a way out not only in
the case of Arab nationalism, to feelings of discrimination and
inferiority complexes. This was provided through strengthening the
components of national identity such as race, with its purity and
superiority, and national characteristics, with their nobility. In
the words of Fuad Ajami, there was a process of "the Germanization
of Arab nationalism".
These concepts developed at a time when the Arab world was passing
from Turkish rule to western colonial rule. Under the influence of
the great western powers, in place of the Ottoman regions,
semi-democratic entities were created all over the Arab world. Many
believe that the establishment of "restricted democracy"
contributed more than anything to the increase in anti-democratic
feelings in the Arab world.5 The pseudo-democracy of the Arab world
enabled a restricted elite to enjoy the fruits of western
liberalisation, but they created a situation of alienation between
that elite and the majority of the population. The British
researcher Ronald Robinson described this process very well when he
called the elites of the third world in the period of
de-colonization as "collaborators". He connected the collapse of
the social basis of these elites with the process of the break-up
of the French and British empires in the Middle East, Asia and
Africa. Robinson dealt in particular with the start of the
twentieth century.6 His pupil successors applied Robinson's
explanation in order to analyze the fall of the British empire and
the veteran elites in the Middle East at the end of the second
world war - that is, in the period when the present secular elites
developed.? Another researcher, Raphael Patai, determined in the
1950's that the over-proximity of the mandatory regimes in the Arab
world to social elites there brought about the fall of those elites
on the day of national liberation. According to Patai, it was
economic polarization which brought about social alienation and
finally - political uprising.8 We would add that the price which
"collaborators" paid when the chips were down is not only in their
own fall but in their having created an identity between democracy
and liberalism and colonialism on the one hand and imperialism on
the other. When the "collaborators" came down, these western
concepts went bankrupt.
Thus under more secular liberatory regimes, the population lived
under less democratic regimes than in the mandatory period. At the
peak of the period of direct and indirect European rule, the Arab
societies won a certain amount of freedom of expression and
individual rights. In places like Saudia Arabia and Jordan, where
there was no national war of liberation and no transformation of
power took place, it also appeared that under indirect western
influence (Saudi Arabia) and direct influence Gordan), there were
more phenomena of democratization and liberalization of the
political system.
The liberating generation saw in these fruits of democracy an
over-high price to payout in return for a lack of complete
independence. The formulation which sprang up for national
liberation was that the more the struggle sharpened, so "secondary"
subjects like freedom of expression and individual rights were
increasingly pushed aside. The liberation of the homeland became
the liberation of society both from the Islamic tradition of the
distant past and from the European heritage of the recent past.
This equation was thoroughly exploited by Michel Aflaq and Salah
ad-Din aI-Bitar who establihed the Ba'ath, and Gamal Abd ai-Nasser,
in order to justify an ideology which clearly and deliberately
disdained individual freedom and rights.9
Therefore, the roots of dictatorship are not in Islam; on the
contrary, the political picture of the Arab world at the end of the
present half-century shows the supremacy of regimes with a secular
ideology, mostly socialistic and dictatorial, a supremacy which
created a false impression that Islam is in retreat to a position
of weakness from which it will not recover. But in this picture
too, the cracks were soon revealed. The outstanding breaking point
was undoubtedly the six-day war and the defeat in the struggle
against Israel.
The crisis of 1967 and its aftermath: Islamic moderates and
fanatic fundamentalism
The 1967 crisis led the Arab leadership in two contradictory
directions, which were bound to clash. The economic crisis dragged
the secular regimes toward the West, particularly after the
limitations of assistance from the eastern bloc were revealed. This
drift to the West brought with it exposure to exterior pressures
for more democratization (particularly when Democratic Presidents
were in power in America and with the beginning of a period of
conciliation between the two world blocs). In the Egyptian case,
this development led to a dramatic change in policy toward Israel -
a course which indicated the beginning of the end of the Russian
presence in the region.
However, another and contrary trend was evident. The defeat at
Israel's hands and the economic crisis created a wide and mass
power base for the extra-establishment Islamic movements. These
movements were created by the "fundamentalist" students of Muhammad
Abduh.
The second generation of fundamentalists is represented in the
personality of Hassan al-Bana, founder of the "Muslim Brethren"
movement in 1929. In the 1930's, the members of the "Muslim
Brethren" were engaged in a struggle for their recognition, in
Egypt and elsewhere, as an alternative religious establishment to
that of al-Azhar, but not in a direct clash with it. His activity
continued until his death, apparently at the hands of agents of the
Egyptian government, in 1949. His death left the movement without
leadership for a long time. The leadership crisis resulted in a
split in the movement, motivated not only by the personal
aspirations of his followers, but also by an ideological argument
over his legacy.
The discussion over his ideological legacy remained to a large
extent under the surface in view of the uncompromising struggle of
the officers' regime in Egypt against Islam and tradition in
general, and the "Muslim Brethren" in particular. But after the
1967 crisis, the controversy emerged more strongly than ever. In
brief, AI-Bana's vision was Salafi to the extent that it aspired to
return Islam to its old glory. But there were additional elements:
mystical, socialist and national. His main writing deals with a
call to return to Muslim orthodoxy but also with a demand to
society, in the name of Islam, to engage in matters of education,
fostering the community, development of the industrial potential of
Egypt, and social welfare projects. AI-Bana demanded full Egyptian
independence under the rule of a Caliph who would impose an
orthodox Islamic regime. The criterion for membership and joining
the movement were not rigid or clear, and it may be that this can
explain the wide membership in Egypt, which reached two million
registered members. 10
Those continuing in al-Bana's path did not debate the vision but
found themselves differing over the way of reaching it. His
official successor, the Egyptian judge Hassan AI-Hudeibi who was
appointed "supreme guide" of the movement in 1951, developed while
in a Nasserist gaol a new more moderate thesis on means of work.
The thesis found in his book Preachers and Not Judges was in effect
a reply to a theory developed by Sayyid Qutb who competed with
Hudeibi for the leadership of the movement and became its first
ideologue in the 1960's. II
Qutb wrote and thought under the influence ot the mighty success of
Nasserism in Egypt. The members of the movement were thrown into
gaol and tortured while the secular Nasserist Messianism succeeded
in undermining the base of the young mass support for the
"Brethren". This failure gave birth for Qutb to the ideas of the
Takfir, the Hijrah the Tali'a and the modem Jahiliya, concepts
which allIed the fundamentalist to a fanatic and uncompromising
struggle with authority.
In any case, Takfir means that the society in which a Muslim lives
is totally evil and infidel, and therefore one cannot cooperate
with any factor within it. Its fate is like that of the Jahiliya,
the pre-Islamic society in the period of the Prophet. Therefore it
must be Islamized and those refusing to accept the yoke of the
religion and fighting against Islam - must be fought against.
The most popular way among the extremists was that of separatism
within the society, even though there were those who tried to
maintain a separatist way of life on the fringe of society, for
instance in the caves of the Egyptian desert. Against this concept,
a more moderate fundamentalism grew. The researcher Fuad Ajami
called this, as noted above, "Conservative fundamentalism". As we
have said, Hassan al-Hudeibi is the most faithful representative of
this approach, which supports a compromise with the political
reality, be it democratic or dictatorial. Another faithful
representative is the Egyptian religious' Alim (sage) Salah aI-Din
AI-Munagid who after 1967 published a book called 'lmadat al-Nakba
(Pillars of the Disaster) calling for capitalism founded on
Islam.12 This is for the most part an indictment against Nassers's
years of nationalisation, not lacking traces of antisemitism in
references to Marxist Zionism as the warp of the Jewish reality
intended to harm Islam.
AI-Hudeibi was also arrested and tortured by Nasser's police but
his conclusions were totally different from those of Qutb, who
suffered similarly. AI-Hudeibi declared that the realization of
Islam by the believer is an individual matter for every single
Muslim, and only certain areas belong to Islamic rule. Lacking an
Islamic government, every Muslim is personally responsible for his
faith; nobody has the right to determine that aI)other
Muslim, or the whole Muslim society, is a sinner. Though al-Hudeibi
is vague regarding the means for mobilizing the "Muslim Brethren",
he stressed that persuasion and not violence are the only possible
means to use.
An echo of al-Hudeibi's "preachers and not judges" can today be
found in the words of Dr. 'Abed al-Mun'im Nimr, the Egyptian
Minister of Religion, in the Egyptian paper AI-Mass'a: "Islam is
not an extreme religion, it is a moderate and delicate religion, we
must think about the violence of young people (fanatics) - we the
preachers must illuminate the path of these youngsters". Nimr
explains that he is not opposed to the demand of the fanatic
youngsters to establish Shari'a but to the means they are
employing. They betrayed the correct and authentic preachers and
turned to false Messiahs in the form of Islamic fanatics. In the
same paper, Dr. Ahmad Amar Hashem, deputy director of the al-Azhar
University and Dr. Mustafa al-Shar'a, one of the leading Islamic
philosophers of our day, wrote in a similar vein. 13 All are in one
way or another people of the establishment but they have a
connection to the "Brethren". Therefore a synthesis is being
increasingly created in Egypt between these two poles: the secular
regime and its religious establishment on the one hand, and on the
other "the Muslim Brethren", two elements which in the not too
distant past had been engaged in a frightful struggle.
The miraculous formulation: secular regimes and conservative
fundamentalism
The pragmatic stream of al-Hudeibi succeeded in existing due in
large to the change which occurred in the attachment of secular
leaders like Nasser, Aflaq and aI-Bitar. Even Nasser deviated in
the wake of the Six-Day War and toward the end of his life, from
the rigid way with which he had dealt with the "Muslim Brethren"
and the religious establishment. His successor, Anwar Sad at,
succeeded in exploiting the moderate stream of al-Hudeibi. Sadat,
who was in need of support against Communist opposition after his
rise to power, made an alliance with the religious establishment,
and even with the Islamic fundamentalists. He decided to free the
leaders of the "Brethren" and thus contributed to a continuation of
the modetrate dynasty in the movement's leadership.
The "Muslim Brethren" both in the Sadat and Mubarak periods
continued to show pragmatism in everything connected to the term
Islam Din wa-Dawla (Islam religion and state). The readiness of
Sadat, and afterwards of Mubarak, to change the Egyptian
constitution so that the Shari'a will be included as the main
source of Egyptian legislation, and to pass a number of religious
laws, brought the "Brethren" closer to the officers' regime. The
present leadership of the movement condemned, and continues to
condemn, acts of violence perpetrated by Islamic extremists in the
1970's and 1980's.14 And finally, only recently they agreed to
participate in the central political process in Egypt of the 1980's
- democratization of the Egyptian parliamentary system. This course
pushed many of the past supporters of the "Brethren"into the arms
of radical Islamic organizations which rose in the spirit of Qutb's
teachings. These bodies are described widely and in detail in
several sources. 15
The radicals are divided and in spite of particular successes (like
the assassination of Sad at), they did not succeed in any Arab
state in bringing about a real change in the government (Sudan
maybe an exception where they rule jointly with a military regime
and time will tell whether Algeria is the first Arab state to fall
into their hands). Pragmatic fundamentalist Islam which agreed to
cooperate with existing regimes won significant achievements,
including government positions in Jordan and Tunisia. In Saudia
Arabia, Egypt, Morocco and recently also Syria, the cooperation is
increasing. In Algeria the cooperation came too late and only under
American pressure. The government's unwillingess to co-opt the
extremists left the Islamic Front there united and able to win the
elections when the FLN, again under Western pressure, decided to
use a false democratization as the best means of coping with the
Islamic challenge. Asad's Syria is an interesting reflection of
this process. In this state, pure secularism recorded unusual
achievements because of the Alawi basis of the regime. Yet even in
the 1960's the leaders of the Ba'ath found out that pure secularism
faces a hard struggle. Since his rise to power in 1970, Hafez
al-Asad has been aware of the need to reach some compromise with
the religious establishment. In March 1973 the Syrian President
surrendered to the demands of the Ulama and took back the previous
resolution to eliminate all the points indicating a connection
between religion and state in Syria.16 In Tunisia, too, the secular
government found that it was necessary to retreat from attempts at
total struggle with religion. The compromise is therefore not
always dictated by the establishment, but by more militant factors
even if they too, according to their world-outlook, oppose any
cooperation with the secular regime. 17
The formula of pragmatic Islam, which was compelled to cooperate
with the national government but in return succeeds in restricting
Since the establishment of the Saudi Arabian state, the dynasty
agreed to divide power with the religious establishment: internal
affairs are subject to far-reaching influence by that establishment
- to the extent of maintaining the principle of the Tatbiq (direct
Islamic legislation) while foreign and security affairs are in the
hands of the ruling family which, at least outside the homeland, is
not outstanding for its religious orthodoxy.
Pragmatic fundamentalist Islam which agreed to cooperate with
existing regimes won significant achievements
In Pakistan and in Sudan these formulas have been existing for a
long time.
In the Saudi formula, foreign and security affairs, which were from
the start secular to a fanatic degree, and now accept compromise -
are the property only of the rulers. One can thus say that whatever
processes will pertain in the Arab-Israel conflict, they will not
be influenced by the balance of forces between conservative
fundamentalism and the ruling elites. Moreover, the readiness of
the religious establishment to take part in government became clear
in several places as contributing to democratization, as witnessed
by developments in Kuwait and Afghanistan in the 1960's.
Islamic pragmatism and democratization attempts
Were we necessarily inclined to the equation of Islam as a force
constituting a barrier to democratization and to liberalism, we
would have to conclude that any compromise with the religious
establishment ultimately leads to the strengthening of dictatorship
and theocracy in the Arab world. It seems, however, that it is
precisely western secular theories which are the basis of a lack of
democracy in the Arab world. Islam and tradition are not everywhere
catalysts for anti-democratic processes. In the last three decades
we were actually witness to a number of political developments in
the Arab and Muslim worlds in which Islam and tradition served as a
factor and basis for experiments in democracy.
From 1964 to 1976, a "tribal democracy" was maintained in Kuwait
for twelve years, under the leadership of the AI-Sabah family,
founded on an equal division of state resources between all its
residents along with a larger degree of political participation by
society. This process was stopped in 1976 but for our discussion it
is important to note that tradition and Islam served here as the
basis for democratization. 18 The Kuwaiti experiment was directed
from above and this may have caused its failure. But the readiness
of traditional-monarchial regimes, which draw justification for
their rule from religion and tradition, to undertake
democratization processes, is no less, and may sometimes be more,
than that of secular regimes. 19
On the other hand, in Afghanistan the experiment in Islamic
democratization was motivated from below. The need arose out of a
fear of a split between Shi'ites and Sunnies. Between the years
1964 and 1973 Shi'ite and Sunni bodies cooperated in government
with the help of a western democratic-parliamentary structure. But
the two main groups, the "Islamic Front" and the "Islamic Youth"
were more occupied with theological arguments than with preserving
democracy, and the experiment failed. Here too, however, as in
Kuwait, outside factors (Pakistan and the USSR) contributed to the
failure out of fear of a precedent.20
The researcher Fuad Ajami goes as far as to claim that in the wake
of the Khomeini revolution in Iran, there arose a wave of panic in
the Arab world, which found expression in hurried democratization
experiments. He claims that the Arab leaders used democratization
as a means of strengthening Arab unity against Khomeinism. Though
unsuccessful, this democratization was founded on Islam and
Arabism.2l Yet it is too early to assume that we have a failure
here, because the process is still proceeding, and it is once again
worthwhile to note that Islam served as the basis for this course
of events.
Conclusion
Islam, then, served in the past as a source of inspiration for
democratic and liberal outlooks. However, this interpretation of
religious dogma, which was largely confined to enlightened circles,
also did not last long. From "Reformist Islam" there grew a
secular, anti-democratic trend which reached its peak in the
1960's. At its side there developed a fundamentalist trend which
failed in its political struggle.
The results of the Six-Day War forced the secular regimes to
manifest moderation both toward the processes of democratization
and liberalization and, notwithstanding the contradiction, toward
Islamic fundamentalism. This new policy of the regimes toward the
Islamic movements and establishments brought about an escalation in
the stand of the extremists, as one can see in our day, but it also
led to a division in the fundamentalist camp. The fundamentalist
trend responded to the Arab leaders with both a pragmatism of its
own toward their policy and their very being, and with readiness to
compromise with the society and the reality surrounding it.22
Where, as in Algeria and the Sudan, the secular military regimes
refused any kind of significant co-operation, the fundamentalists
remained united and succeeded in either taking over (the Sudan) or
striving with good prospects to do so (in Algeria). However, as the
Sudanese case shows ¬once in power, pragmatism prevails at
least to some extent, and an internal struggle between radicals and
extremists ensues.
Pragmatism can even be found in fundamentalist organizations such
as the Hamas and ai-Jihad al-Islami. Like other fundamentalist
movements these are groups of political activists striving for
power in the name of a most radical and uncompromising
interpretation of Islam's fundamentals. They thrive in areas hit by
poverty, unemploymnet and foreign or military occupation. As such
they are not made of one mind: there are those among them who are
more pragmatic and would wish to partake in the running of the
state wherever this is offered to them. Their co-option into the
Jordanian and Saudi governments is a case in point. It is also
probable that in Gaza some of the Hamas people will similiarly
aspire for co-option with the PLO, if the latter decides wisely to
offer them a share in the government.
Such a reconciliation can lead to those extremists left behind
striking with all their might, as indeed happened in Egypt when
Sadat compromised with the Muslin Brethren. The reconciliation then
led to the emergence of the ai-Jihad al-Islami, the predecessor of
the Gamat al-Islamiyya, which have meanwhile succeeded in ruining
Egypt's tourism and could wreak even more serious harm. Like the
extreme Hamas groups, these are people interested in action as
such, even death. Their criterion is not success or failure, or the
possible repercussions of their terror on society.
But even Egypt can still find the way to deal with the new threat.
A combined approach of easing social and economic problems on the
one hand, and the readiness to accomodate parties which stress the
importance of tradition and religion, on the other, may help to
withstand the challenge of Islamic extremism.
Even were another thinker in the image of Abduh not to rise in the
Arab world, the seeds which he sowed nevertheless created a new
reality. Islamic fundamentalism did not wither away, but remained
with significant potential from a social and political point of
view. However as against this, the national Arab state survived
mainly in its secular image, and its power of resistance
increased.23 It ensues that these two forces can learn to
compromise. This conciliation can also portend well for the ability
of the Arab states to adapt to the existence of the state of
Israel.